The engine that is supposed to propel evolution needs to have the muscle for shape shifting one kind of creature into another. That engine is described as neo-Darwinism, the combination of mutations to create genetic variations, and natural selection to winnow out the fittest variants.

An immediate problem arises in that this mechanism must explain all features of all creatures in every environment. The fin of the fish and the legs of the crab must both be explained by water. The short neck of the elephant and long neck of the giraffe must both be explained by leaf food . . . and so on through all of nature. Obviously, evolution is not very selective or powerful since every environmental niche contains myriad creatures of different shapes, colors, and abilities.

On the same piece of geography can be found bacteria, insects, fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, mammals . . . all manner of creature in every imaginable color, size, and configuration. If evolution were true, there should be just one "most fit" "naturally selected" creature.

If natural selection effectively dictated form and function, the desert would have one kind of creature, the ocean another, the forest another, and the air yet another. Instead, there are millions of varieties in each of these habitats, about nine million total species. This effectively denies that evolution is a powerful and exacting force sufficient to explain the biological world.

Sometimes there is variation in response to environmental pressure, but such variation is subtle and never does something like create a new beneficial organ or whole new creatures. The remarkable variation that exists in the world, frankly, fits better creative ingenuity and even artistic flair.

Each Step and Detail Must Be Explained

Consider just the eyelid. It includes skin cells, muscles, nerves, blood vessels, lymphatics, connective tissue, mucosal tissue, sweat glands, sebaceous glands, lashes, hormones, immune cells and so forth, all arranged in a precise three-dimensional shape, and wired and plumbed to the rest of the body so it can function both voluntarily and on autopilot. Each of those parts, in turn, has millions of cell, organelle, and biochemical parts. Every single detail down to the placement of each atom must be accounted for by evolutionists.

But explaining such detail has never been done other than in very broad, and sweeping terms, such as: "The eyelid evolved because it was necessary to protect and lubricate the eye. Those with lids were more fit than those without them. Thus our 'lidded' ancestors had a selective advantage."

Such simplistic storytelling conjecture doesn't explain the origin and transformation of any of the millions of components.

Irreducible Complexity

Evolution assumes that life is a mere summation of parts, a philosophy known as materialistic reductionism. Thus, like machines, organisms are thought to be understood by taking them apart.

Such exploration has revealed some aspects of how living things work but does not point to evolutionary origin. That's because functional things are irreducibly complex. Mutate (remove or add) parts and creatures either do not work (die), or become less functional (diseased). Yet all evolutionary precursors supposedly had less developed, and thus nonfunctional, parts. Thus, living things cannot evolve—add and remove parts—they are irreducibly complex and thus could not mutate to be less or more than what they are.

Mutations Are Not Nice Things

Evolutionists refer to "mutations" as though they are an explanatory holy grail. Recall the teacher claiming to the class that the beginning of the universe is no big deal, saying, "First you start with some dust . . ." A student interrupts, "Hey, wait, get your own dust!"

Similarly, evolutionists claim there is no mystery to the panoply of life, and say, "First you take some DNA, then you mutate it. . ." But mutations don't create DNA starting materials. So, we should respond, "Hey, wait, get your own DNA!" But they are woefully unable to account for any of it, much less the human genome containing the equivalent of the information in 3 quadrillion (3 X 1015) fact-filled books.

Mutations must be called upon again and again to create complex and beneficial changes. But mutations are a random disruption of the information contained in DNA. Random changes to information, as the Law of Information dictates, result in degradation, not improvement.

The pressure in nature is always from complex to random no matter how much natural selection is applied. That's why, in practice, mutations are essentially 100% lethal or disadvantageous. In humans, mutations are linked to dwarfism, albinism, Huntington's Chorea, Down's syndrome, cystic fibrosis, familial hypercholesterolemia, and cancer . . . to only begin the list of hundreds.

The inability, or reduced capacity, of humans to synthesis certain nutrients, such as the 22 essential amino acids, vitamins, long chain fatty acids, antioxidants, and others without which we suffer disease and death is most likely traceable to mutational damage to the genome. For example, the essentiality of vitamin C is traced to a mutation in the GULO (gulonolactone oxidase) gene. Minus this vitamin in our diet, scurvy and an array of pleomorphic (various form) diseases and weaknesses occur. At our beginning, unspoiled by mutational damage, we were likely far more nutritionally self-sufficient.

Cancer is now devastating modern society with 1600 people in the US, and 21,000 worldwide dying from it each day. Causes ultimately relate to disrupted normal metabolism or altered genetics. All carcinogens (chemicals that cause cancer) are mutagens. For the same reasons you don't want to store nuclear waste under your bed, you don't want an existence driven by mutations.

There is not one example of a beneficial mutation that increases the functional complexity of an organism. An increase in functional complexity—needed for evolution in the molecule-to-man sense—should not be confused with mutations that may increase survivability. For example, the AIDS virus is thought to mutate resistance to drugs. But the AIDS virus does not become something more complex, such as a bacterium or protozoan. If given reprieve from the drugs, it will just revert to its original wild type. (In fact, it may not even be mutations that create such resistance. Epigenetics demonstrates that new characteristics in organisms are not new and are not mutations, but rather the molecular switching on and off of existing genetic codes.)

The Anti-Evolution DNA Mechanism

Living tissue is constantly subjected to mutagenic forces such as ionizing radiation, cosmic rays, and chemicals. Each day thousands of mutations occur in our tissues. We wouldn't survive if not for DNA repair mechanisms. These biochemical systems within cells have the ability to detect, excise, and repair mutations. And this is no small sneeze of an effort by the body to void mutations. Some 4,600 biochemicals are engaged in DNA repair.

Think of that. We live because we have automatic mechanisms that repair mutations. These repair mechanisms not only help keep us alive, but they also lock creatures in to what they are. They are evolution preventers and our survival depends on them.

The Ultimate Survivor

Fast-reproducing microorganisms have a high mutation rate and should have long ago evolved out of their single-celled retardation. They should no longer exist. But they do—and they look just like their progenitors, no matter how far back in time we go or how many trillions of reproductive cycles occur. Recall the 3.8 billion-year-old stromatolite bacteria that still exist today, unchanged.

Since survivability is the thesis of evolution, life should have stayed as microbes, not evolved into more specialized and thus more vulnerable creatures. Better yet, life should have not even begun, since the inorganic elements of which they are composed are virtually indestructible. Better even yet, stay just energy that is totally indestructible.

The Missing Links

If evolution is true, the world should abound with transitional mutated organs and organisms. There should be no need to search for "missing links," since they would be everywhere in the fossil record and alive today.

Forming new organs would require millions of transitional steps because billions of different chemical parts need to be developed, transformed, and interlinked with one another. These steps should be clearly evident everywhere in living and fossilized creatures in countless gradations.

Given evolution, it would now be impossible to clearly differentiate one sort of creature from another. But no, the biota is not a blur, but rather demarcated by distinct, recognizable, and well-developed forms, called syngameons, that remain true to their kind. Humans stay humans, chimps stay chimps, dogs stay dogs.

Culling the Transitions

If a step occurred toward a new trait but was not functional and advantageous, it would make the organism less fit. A budding wing cannot know that a million years hence it will be a functional flight organ if it just hangs in there. Instead, natural selection would cull out organisms with useless appendages that are in the developmental stages.

There is no survival value of a nub destined to be a wing in a million years or so, or a flopping appendage that has a few, scraggly, wannabe feathers emerging here and there. Any random change in an existing organism will make the creature genetically discombobulated, less fit than the form from which it was derived. Natural selection is not the savior, it is a pitiless executioner.

Impossible to Explain by Evolution

The planthopper, Laternaria servillei, has at one end the perfect shape of a small alligator's head and has painted on its back the perfect likeness of alligator teeth, eyes, nostrils, and markings. The only obvious purpose is to scare away predators. Evolutionary transitions leading to this likeness would have been amorphous white blotches signaling to predators, "Come eat me." Thus, the transitions would have been gobbled up. If there were no transitions, there could be no planthopper. But there is. There is no mutational or genetic mechanism that could account for such a feature. The only reasonable conclusion is that the likeness was created fully formed.

⌕ Click to enlarge

​Macaws live in a rain forest that contains some 40,000 varieties of trees. Only about ten produce edible fruit for the birds. Of the ten, most only bear fruit a few days each year and some only do so every several years. With no written language or maps, how was the macaw ability to find the right trees developed or transmitted? The capability could not arise by chance mutations and selection. The forest floor would have long ago been fertilized with the exhausted bodies of macaws waiting for the right mutations enabling them to find the right ten trees at the right times of the year.

The orb weaver spider (Plesiometa argyra) lives in the rain forest of Costa Rica. It spins a round (orb) web. A parasitic wasp (Hymenoepimecis sp.) can temporarily paralyze the spider by stinging it in the mouth. The wasp then attaches a wasp egg to the spider's abdomen. A larva hatches from the egg, pierces the abdomen of the spider and dines on hemolymph (spider blood). The larva knows how to do this in such a way that the spider remains alive long enough to sustain the larva. The night the larva finally kills the spider, it gorges on the remaining contents of the spider and discards the empty shell to the forest floor.

⌕ Click to enlarge

But before that grotesque end, the larva communicates instructions to the spider to change its web weaving to a rectangular shape supported by beefed-up cabling. The new web shape accommodates the weight of the wasp larva so it can spin a cocoon to pupate and metamorphose into a wasp to begin the whole macabre cycle all over again. The special web protects the cocoon from heavy rains and the emerging wasp from being entangled in the spider's normal web.

Not only is it impossible to explain in detail, step-by-step, the evolution of such a complex parasitic relationship, it is flabbergasting to attempt an evolutionary explanation of a wasp larva communicating to the spider the new shape of a web to build.

Here we have a situation where a spider "evolved" to tolerate an egg laid on its abdomen that slowly kills it. Before the spider dies it does the bidding of the wasp larva and spins a web especially for its executioner to pupate on.

The end result is a new wasp that sets about finding other spiders to suck the life out of, boss around, and kill. By natural selection rules, this spider is more fit than its precursors that didn't let wasps kill them or force them to create a hatchery for their killers!

Speaking of cocoons, consider the impossibility of a specific step-by-step evolutionary mechanism (biochemical and genetic detail, not stories) enabling a worm to transform itself into a wasp. moth, or butterfly. Even if the mechanism were there (which it is not), where would the desire for such a transformation come from?

Not one scientific paper out of the tens of thousands that have appeared monthly for over a century has ever elucidated in detail the answer to such problems, or how evolving partially formed organs and traits escape the brutality of natural selection.

The entire biological world is filled with such conundrums. Evolutionists' answer is to ignore them or call them temporary gaps in understanding. The problem is, all of evolution is filled with such gaps.

The bottom line is that the astounding complexity of organisms is not explained by evolution, nor would any organism dare change significantly from its functional and surviving self. If anything, natural selection is an excellent mechanism for preventing genetic aberrations (like mutations) from changing, vitiating, or destroying a species.

The failure of evidence and lack of any logical mechanism, by Darwin's own words, defeats evolution. In The Origin of Species, he wrote:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Leave a Reply.

Introduction1. Rules for Finding Truth2. Truth Is Real and Accessible3. Origin Choices4. The Laws of Thermodynamics5. The Law of Information6. The Law of Impossibility7. The Law of Biogenesis8. The Laws of Chemistry9. The Law of Time10. Fossil Problems11. Have Humans Evolved?12. Are We Selected Mutants?13. Favorite Evolutionist Proofs14. Why Evolution Is Believed15. Free Will Proves Creation16. Design17. Biological Machines18. Nuts, Bolts, Gears, and Rotors Prove Intelligent Design19. Humans Defy Evolution20. The Anthropic Universe21. Evolution’s Impact22. Putting Religion on the Table23. How Religion Begins and Develops24. Religions Cross Pollinate25. Gods Writing Books26. Questionable Foundations of Christianity27. How Best to Measure Holy Books28. The Ultimate Holy Book Test29. Religion Unleashed30. End(s) of the World31. Defending Holy Books32. Faith33. The Source of Goodness34. Matter is an Illusion35. Weird Things Disprove Materialism36. Even Weirder Things37. Creature Testimony38. Personal Weirdness39. Proving Weird Things40. Skeptics and Debunkers41. Free Will Proves We Are Other42. Mind Outside Matter43. Death is a Return44. Life After Death45. Why There is Suffering46. The Creator47. Thinking’s Destination$1 Million Reward

Disclaimer: This information has been created solely for educational purposes. It is the sharing of knowledge gained through decades of Dr. Wysong's experience and research. Dr. Wysong and others at the Wysong organization are not engaged in giving medical advice or services. The information provided is not to be construed as a relationship of diagnostician/prescriber (Wysong) and patient (you), but as educator (Wysong) and information seeker (you). Wysong information is not intended as medical advice or to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional. The reader understands that everything done or tried as a result from reading this information or anything on the related websites is at his or her own risk. Dr. Wysong and his staff shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss, damage or injury caused, or alleged to be caused directly or indirectly by the information provided. It is fully the reader's choice as to how they act or don't act upon the educational information Wysong presents.

Information on this site may be copied intact with copyright, source, and authorship identified, and provided it is used only in not-for-profit purposes. Copying beyond excerpts and individual articles, or any other use requires specific permission by Dr. Wysong.